I think it's fair to take a fee for payments through Apple's infrastructure... but 30% is egregious.
> Apple has also made clear that if creators on Patreon continue to use unsupported billing models or disable transactions in the iOS app, we will be at risk of having the entire app removed from their App Store.
They're not literally forced, they have a choice: A) abide by the rules of the platform or B) leave the platform.
I agree that it's shitty by Apple, but if you start playing the game (being on the AppStore), don't be surprised when you have to continue playing the game by adjusting how you do things.
This forcing apps to use your payment platform through extortion is anti-competitive. Full stop.
But, IIRC, Apple makes it nearly impossible to offer off-app payments without breaking their TOS, including linking to them (don't quote me on that).
Patreon works fine in a web browser.
I'm not making a judgement on right or wrong, but I see many people just thinking about infrastructure and not realizing Apple sees iOS user base as one that would not exist without them. And, they want to get paid for access.
This is what happens on consoles today. Apple views the iPhone as a closed and complete ecosystem where licensees are allowed to write apps - like a console. The hardware, OS, and App Store are viewed as a single entity and not distinct.
Not saying I agree, but it's important to understand Apple's argument. Given the ruling from the Epic case I think Apple will win the majority of any action taken against the AppStore (not a monopoly, business terms are irrelevant). IMO where Apple is vulnerable is interop like with messaging. I can only guess Apple's lawyers think the same, hence Apple's fairly recent push into RCS.
Except no, actually, it isn't. Neither Xbox nor PlayStation attempt to collect a 30% royalty from any of the streaming apps nor block them from steering.
Consoles have a significantly more harmonious relationship with the developers, whereas Apple's is drastically more abusive. This is not an insignificant difference, both morally and legally.
The challenge (as always) is accessibility and discoverability. The functionality is all there.
And that's the challenge that actually matters, and is more or less insurmountable on iOS.
Patreon does.
I'm inclined to think the "write off the iOS app entirely" option was one of the very very first things they pondered, and the odds are that it's pretty clear that was going to be a very, very expensive option.
I’m not sure why Patreon couldn’t replace the “subscribe” button with a “wishlist” button within the iOS app. They could add a link that opens your wishlist in the browser too. It turns what should be 1 click into 3, but it seems far more sensible than accepting the 30% fee.
And if it is true that they're not allowed to disable payments, I would also love to know what's special about Amazon, Netflix, and Spotify (other than their size) that would allow them to "get away" with the same behavior.
Perhaps, if only the segment of the population forced to use a browser that didn't support PWAs for over a decade. I can see why they would forget about websites over a long enough period of time.
I subscribe to a bunch of Patreons, and most of them are videos (which I can view on a website) or they're downloadable assets I use my PC for accessing anyways, wouldn't make sense on mobile no matter app or website.
Hell, Jobs originally wanted there to be no iPhone SDK, and for everyone to create webapps. Man, that would have been a better world. Initially it would have sucked, but the mobile web platform would have improved so much faster, and APIs for doing native-y things would have been complete and useful 15 years ago.